pope made homophobic slur

[Maninthemiddle]

Actually lots of Far Right Christians are trying to force their religion on America.
There is no hetero month as it's the default.
And no one is forcing it on him. What is forced upon us is a homogonized outlook that revolves around Christians and white men. We have pride, as do other minorities such as black people, because history is a very different story when you include that we were there to.
Or think of it this way. It should be that Alan Turing being a gay man is totally irrelevant. But it's not because he was crucial in winning WWII for the Allies and harshly punished by having gender dysphoria forced on him. He was punished to chemical castration and his body feminized, including growing breasts. He killed himself. So that's why his story is important. His other story is really only relevant for computer geeks and Jeopardy contestants.

You will not get fired for saying your not for Christianity will you.

 

[Argentbear]

You will not get fired for saying your not for Christianity will you.

Nor woudl anyone be fired for saying they are not gay. But just as above, that is not hate speech

 

[setarcos]

Yeah you deny it and go on to make homophobic posts and when you get called out on you. Start whining about how you are the victim.

Deny? What is it I'm denying without good reason? If I've denied something it is with reason. Reason that is posted here right alongside the denial.


Lol....I expect to get called out. I expect to be insulted, accused, and disagreed with. That is why I am here. To express my belief get others opinions of that belief and debate what is sound reasoning about that belief.

It’s pretty shallow of you to accuse me of whining because I have reasonable dissent against being labeled something I'm not. This is usually indicative of someone having no reasonable counterpoints to other peoples points and are thus reduced to making baseless accusations and insults.



Here is what I said about being accused of whining the first time you said this...



"YOU may try to victimize me by derogatorily mislabeling me and then turn it around and claim that I'm claiming to be a victim but I haven't claimed that and I don't feel like I am a victim. At least in the sense that whether or not my reasoning is sound and people agree with it nothing of my personhood has been successfully victimized. If I am right then you’re victimizing yourself by insisting on ignorantly misapplying a label. If I am wrong then what is being victimized in myself? My ignorance?"



It’s all there in post 355...the last time you pushed victimhood upon me.

Notice, I asked you to explain your claim and have yet to get your explanation. Care to do that now?

This goes to show that debating people like you needs to be recorded for reference lest you twist truths to suit your own agenda. Shameful. You don't have to do that. You can just have a discussion with me. I'm sure I've been wrong at times but you're doing a poor job of showing that.

You continue to misrepresent the word homophobic

Homophobia - an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. It includes antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and hatred of homosexuals

?? I literally dissected that definition for you in relation to how I feel and what I've reasoned out here with you as to why the word doesn't aptly describe me. Pushing the term upon people such as myself is simply an attempt at fulfilling an agenda. That agenda seems to be to derogatorily label all those who show dissent against homosexuality as being hateful, racist, or bigoted and thereby belittle their positions.


It’s pathetic, it’s immoral, and its reverse discrimination.

You've just reposted the same definition as if it’s a counterpoint. WE HAVE THE DEFINITION, IT’S BEEN POSTED. Now all you have to do is give counterpoints to the dissection of the definition I did for you. If you can't then my point stands as reasonable.

and your quote above about the dismay at being pushed to watch two homosexuals having sex is irrational. No one is demanding that you watch anyone have sex.

What quote? It would be nice if you referenced the quote so I don't have to do the job of trying to figure out where your thinking arose from.




I think this is what you’re referring to that I said...

"I shouldn't have to like how anyone expresses themselves sexually and I certainly shouldn't be expected to celebrate it or else be called derogatory names. It's irrelevant if anyone can or cannot force me to do those things. What's relevant is the expectations of what I should do."



The first sentence is a solid opinion. Can you give me reasons why it is wrong?

The second sentence states an irrelevancy of whether or not I can or cannot be forced. It doesn't state dismay at being "pushed/forced" to do anything. It literally says those possibilities are irrelevant. It does say that what IS relevant is what you or others expect is reasonable that I should do if I am not to be derogatorily labeled or end up with some other form of punishment like being sued. I think your expectations are unreasonable and I've shown why.

Again...you twisted a modicum -and that's generous- of truth and twisted it to suit your hateful agenda.

You reasons are irrational.

That's your opinion based on no presented logical evidence.

you aren't being forced to watch anyone having sex

Never said I was that I know of. Can you reference something so that I may clarify or correct? Or are you just grabbing at straws again?

Your claim that this minority wants your approval for "How they achieve sexual gratification" is irrational

This just doesn't make sense. What claim? Why do you think I would expect them to want my approval? For that matter why would I care to get anyone to get my approval before they can achieve sexual gratification somehow? I think your way misinterpreting what I've said or making stuff up whole cloth.

The fact that you seem to think anyone who doesn't share your "revulsion" must means something is wrong with them is irrational

I never claimed something must be wrong with those who don't share my revulsion for something. Again what are you referencing? Perhaps you’re misinterpreting what I've said? I did give rational reasons for why I find homosexual practices repulsive. Give counterpoints to my reasoning if you think it is irrational. Simply claiming proof by saying that's irrational as a counterpoint to a claim of rationality is itself irrational.
Are you aware of what a rational argument looks like?

Gays don't make you sick,

If by "Gays" you mean people, then no, most people don't generally make me sick. Not even homosexual people. What some people DO might make me sick but again that would only be if I should be unfortunate enough to accidentally or incidentally witness such things. Or, yes, even be forced to witness such things, such as when being caught up in their criminal activity for instance.
It seems your bound and determined for me to hate homosexuals even though I don't. Why is that? I can't stomach it when my nephew eats his boogers but I still sure love the kid.

You are not being bombarded with ravings

I'm not sure what this means. And how do you know what I am bombarded with?

Media is not 90% saturated with "queerness"

I never said it was 90% saturated with "queerness". What I said was...there has been a 90% increase in representation. That's a big difference.
I understand the point your trying to make here but its not exactly accurate to my meaning.

Here is what I said...
"They’re claims against those specific and increasing expressions of homosexuality that are popping up even where they don't make sense where we have an estimated 1.2 to 6.xx% of the adult population being members of the LGBTQ++ population but we have an unrealistic 90% increase in their representation of their sexuality in every media available from commercials, tv, movies, and even kids cartoons, to national holidays and the renaming of streets or removal of street signs in some cities in order to honor “queerness”.

This statement is a generalized accounting of my experience and research into the increase in LGBTQ++ portrayed representation within general society, specifically American media, from the early 20th century to present. While the estimated population of LGBTQ++ persons is between 1.2 and 6.xx% their representation in such media seems to have increased disproportionately. I am not hard set on those numbers as those kinds of statistics are tricky to gather and read. The point being is the 90% in your statement incorrectly represents the 90% in mine. Even if my % is realistic to me but not to others.

You are not reminded of anyone "sexual preference" when you go to the grocery store

Again, how could you possibly know what I am being "reminded of" when I go somewhere?
That is my experience and is hardly - unless you follow me around, noting my experiences - a statement you can reasonably make.

Protests, fliers, and other advertisements concerning the particular sexuality of particular people are regularly encountered by me. All attempting to remind me of just how normal and celebratory certain sexualities should be. Whether or not I and those like me are the intended recipients of such things, I am not so self-important and arrogant to assume. The point being that it has been my experience and it’s pretty petty of you to simply dismiss my experience to attempt to prove something.

 

[setarcos]

I just put up a post of some of your quotes and your words say it all

And I just quoted some of those words/sentences a gave my reasoning and offered to explain myself on any others you care to reference. See below... What my explanations show is that you continually misquote/misinterpret what I've said.

there is nothing else to emphasize but their sexuality.

The above is what you quoted that I said. And taken out of context it seems to contradict this other statement I made...


"This discussion concerns homosexuality not homosexual persons. There is a distinction which we established in our earlier discussions."

Now let’s look at the context since you conveniently left that out. This is the entire sentence...



"The sad thing about this is that there is nothing else to emphasize but their sexuality."

What is the "this"? This quote was taken from post 365 for anyone who cares to read and comment on.

The "this" was in reference to what came before it which was a complaint of mine about how the LGBTQ++ community is presented in the media and pride parades. Why do I think the "this" is sad? Because as I've reasonably pointed out time and time again for you, when you differentiate people by their particular sexualities there IS nothing else to emphasize but their sexuality in the differentiation. If you are represented by your sexuality then that is all there is in your representation.

You’re not emphasizing your humaneness by distinguishing yourself as homosexual. You’re not emphasizing your ability to love, to have a family, to be jealous, to fear, to hate, to be compassionate, to be sympathetic, to be all of the things that human beings are generally capable of being. ALL people - normally - regardless of their sexuality are capable of those things.

By distinguishing yourself as a homosexual, or whatever sexuality, you are only emphasizing your sexuality. That is the only thing I can glean from you telling me your homosexual. Otherwise I don't know if you’re a nice person, a sociopath, an unreasonable a** hole, a spouse abuser, highly intelligent, capable of being sympathetic, wanting to have a family, married, celibate, religious and if so what kind, in other words I don't know anything about your humanity except how you prefer to express yourself sexually.

That is why I think that the media representation of LGBTQ++ and these pride parades are sad...because by distinguishing how the person is presented with the label LGBTQ++ there is nothing emphasized by those labels except their sexuality.

There is a distinction between the "human" and the humans "sexuality". The human being is more than their sexuality. Emphasizing the sexuality for celebration or adoration or representation in some manner necessarily diminishes the representation of the human being. Sexual expression doesn't merit celebration. Nor does its celebration equate to a celebration of humanity.

These things are just ignorant attempts at trying to stop the discrimination, hatred, and abuse of LGBTQ++ persons.

It’s ignorant because that community and the people who are trying to change those things are ironically the ones who are doing the most in how they are attempting that change to reducing the LGBTQ++ persons to little more than how they prefer to express themselves sexually.

You don't increase the status of your humanity by declaring your sexuality. The only thing you do is let everyone know what you are attracted to.

If a people sees that attraction as foreign and threatening somehow while being taught to equate the sexuality with the person because of its emphasis then it naturally becomes easier for those people to dehumanize those they are attacking or discriminating against.

Racists find no merit in being black either.

I qualified my statement with "I have reasons as to why". I've given reasons. You've not shown why my reasons are wrong.


Perhaps you’re misunderstanding the word "merit" as defined?

IF all races deserve equal amounts of merit, which they must or else it would be racist, then what does it mean to find merit in any particular race - all else being equal? If your no more deserving than anyone else then what does it mean to say that you deserve something the others don't?

Do you think blacks find merit in being white instead of black? If they don't then aren't they being racist? If they do then aren't they being racist against their own race? When you mix race and merit see how ridiculous it can become.
The same goes for a sexuality.

There is a whole post of quotes from you saying otherwise

Reference them and I'll explain the difference to you.

I asked you before just what harm you are talking about.

Still waiting.

I gave you examples in the same post...do I need to explain those examples for you? They should be self-explanatory.

How many of these things happen with consent?

Presumably all of them. That's why I referenced them as examples.

Child abuse is done with consent? really?

Two adult parents can certainly consent to abuse their child and some have ended up imprisoned for that consent. Pedophile networks are created between consenting adult parties. Whether or not the child consents is irrelevant. The child is merely the recipient of the adults private consent between themselves to accept their own misbehavior. The business was conducted between consenting adults. And what's more, many times neighbors consent to that consent by turning a blind eye...considering it the parents business for instance until its too late to save the child. Might that be harmful to society with potentially unknown consequences for society later on? Spousal abuse is often a consent between both parties to fight and abuse each other, often ending up subsequently harming their children the most. But that's their business right? As long as they keep it to themselves. I mean, overtly abusing their child in public would disrupt the peace of everyone.
Any other examples Any other examples you wish to go over? you wish to go over?

did I misquote you?

I don't know did you? Probably...lol.

All you have done here is try to reduce people to sex acts

No...All I have been doing here is correcting your understanding of what I've said.
It must be tiring for you to continuously try to conform reality to what you want it to be.

Prejudice? how about when you dehumanize gay people by reducing them and their lives to a sex act.

You’re like a broken record...your stuck in a nonexistent groove again. I've consistently separated the person from their preferred sexual expression. You are consistently trying to bring them back to being equal. It’s getting pretty sad and monotonous. Unless of course you have references and reasoning?
I'm certainly willing to clarify for you.

No one is asking you to.

I never said they were asking me to like their sexuality. I said people who are relevant and interested in these things shouldn't expect one to have to like their sexuality if they don't wish to be derogatorily labeled with hate, or being racist, or being homophobic. That's an unreasonable and discriminatory attack on reasonable dissention.


As far as not being expected to celebrate it? When the government makes it a national holiday some amount of expectation has been given.

That expectation is that while one, at least in the U.S. for now thank God, isn't being forced to celebrate it, one is certainly being encouraged to celebrate it and at least acknowledge the merits of its celebration. Ridiculous on all accounts in my opinion.

Do weddings merit celebrations? anniversaries? families?

I think we can argue that they do. None of those things make you homosexual. Those are things a homosexual might find merit in doing and for good reason but finding merit in those things does not give merit to homosexuality. Unless you can show me in what way homosexuality provides merit to those things and by doing so makes homosexuality meritorious.

Oh wait you choose to only view this particular minority as a sexual act.

Nope. Once again sexuality is not a person nor a group of people. Consequently the particular merits of any particular group of people has nothing to do with somehow giving their particular sexual acts merit.
You really aren't getting this are you?

Your own words say different

Getting really tedious. Reference the words...I'll explain them to you.

you are the one who brought up statistical corelates as relating to "behaviors and or lifestyles, which may leave open questions of moral judgement.
I just asked what statistical correlates concerning LGBT people are you morally judging?

Okay? And I gave you what I thought we might statistically be able to correlate concerning LGBTQ++ people.
Again, I'm not morally judging LGBT people. I'm discussing sexualities and what I find morally repulsive to me and why.

and racists are happy to say "some of my best friends are..."

And occasionally they are correct. But what does your statement have to do with me or what I've posted.
Please don't respond with some puerile unsupported meaningless bunk like..."You’re racist." I've got a bruise started on my head from involuntarily smacking it in exasperation at what you've been saying and having to explain it to you over and over and over again as to why it isn't accurate.

 

[Argentbear]

Deny? What is it I'm denying without good reason? If I've denied something it is with reason. Reason that is posted here right alongside the denial.


Lol....I expect to get called out. I expect to be insulted, accused, and disagreed with. That is why I am here. To express my belief get others opinions of that belief and debate what is sound reasoning about that belief.

It’s pretty shallow of you to accuse me of whining because I have reasonable dissent against being labeled something I'm not. This is usually indicative of someone having no reasonable counterpoints to other peoples points and are thus reduced to making baseless accusations and insults.

and you repeatedly label LGBT people as just sexual acts.

Here is what I said about being accused of whining the first time you said this...



"YOU may try to victimize me by derogatorily mislabeling me and then turn it around and claim that I'm claiming to be a victim but I haven't claimed that and I don't feel like I am a victim. At least in the sense that whether or not my reasoning is sound and people agree with it nothing of my personhood has been successfully victimized. If I am right then you’re victimizing yourself by insisting on ignorantly misapplying a label. If I am wrong then what is being victimized in myself? My ignorance?"

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/pope-made-homophobic-slur.277957/post-8608356
Why do I have to be reminded of someone's sexual preferences every time I go to the damn grocery store or turn on the television?

Am I supposed to tolerate sexual acts between men? ... My intolerance involves some amount of involvement. .. asking for respectful refraining from doing those things in my presence or removing myself from the circumstance, whichever is most productively achievable.


I'm opposed to the celebration of a sexuality. I'm opposed to being asked to tolerate, celebrate, or joyously accept its sexual practices.

bombarded with ravings about how some people’s sexual preferences should be celebrated. Its complete and total ignorance and lunacy. Yah…let’s celebrate sex instead of being a decent human being that treats other human beings morally.

to national holidays and the renaming of streets or removal of street signs in some cities in order to honor “queerness”.

you poor thing.

 

[Argentbear]

And I just quoted some of those words/sentences a gave my reasoning and offered to explain myself on any others you care to reference. See below... What my explanations show is that you continually misquote/misinterpret what I've said.

Please point out exactly where i misquoted you.

 

[setarcos]

and you repeatedly label LGBT people as just sexual acts.

And, again...nothing. No presented reasoning, no counterpoints, no factual examples.
Same delusional groove. You're not listening to what I'm saying or have said. I've repeatedly step by step pointed out the facts which indicate otherwise. Your either incapable of understanding or just refuse to acknowledge the facts because they're not fitting your agenda.
If its because its too emotional a subject for you to be reasonable here I understand and perhaps you should steer clear of these kinds of threads.
The only thing it'll lead to is insult and injured pride. I neither wish to insult you on purpose nor injure your pride if you cannot handle it reasonably.

you poor thing.

...okay, they say patience is a virtue. I'll try to be patient here with your childish responses. I did say to post what I said and I'd explain it to you so lets analyze the quotes you presented...

Why do I have to be reminded of someone's sexual preferences every time I go to the damn grocery store or turn on the television?

This was a question to which your only response was "You are not reminded of anyone "sexual preference" when you go to the grocery store". How reasonable of you to point that out since you know what my experience should be, let alone is.
I conduct my business in a town that has a university in it...God help university students today. I assayed a class once because I thought it would be fun and it was a subject I'm interested in, but what I got was 30 minutes of the professors political views and 25 minutes of relevant class discussion.
One day I'll see pride flags everywhere, Juneteenth the worst, the next, LGBTQ++ protests, I'll see fliers in the grocery store advertising contests and parties, I'll see inappropriately dressed - for anyone - persons advertising inappropriate LGBTQ++ themed messages on their shirts, I've seen LGBTQ++ people accosting passers by in order to force their messages about their sexuality upon them as well. I've seen shouting matches between various groups about sexuality. I've seen violence and misconduct from both sides of the issues.

And what's it about? Save the whales? Justice for disproportionately unsolved crimes against indigenous women? The plight of the Palestinian people or the plight of the Jewish hostages and those raped and murdered -though I've witnessed those protests too-, the rights of women to abortion or not to abortion, the rights of the homeless, the insane costs of healthcare, daycare, education? NO. Its about a frickin sexuality. People are arguing over how they prefer to have sex. Its like an evolved version of a cosmic joke. We've developed advanced cognitive skills only to argue over sexualities.
And its prevalent, persistent, and they are arguing in the wrong way over the wrong things concerning LGBTQ++ persons.
Just like your doing now. You don't think about the reasoning, you don't care about the reasoning. You only care about your own agenda.

Am I supposed to tolerate sexual acts between men?

I do lovingly tolerate homosexuals. I've been saying as much consistently throughout this thread. But what do you mean by "tolerate" homosexuality? Am I supposed to tolerate sexual acts between men? What does that mean? Let them do it without interference? If it’s between them in privacy how am I supposed to interfere? If a man wishes to have sex with a man that is between themselves and "God" for lack of a better term.

Once again you've narrowed the vision to remove the context. The above is the entire paragraph the quote was taken from.
I was asked to lovingly tolerate homosexuality. I don't know what tolerate a sexuality means or how I am supposed to do that as if its an action I can or should take. How does that make me a "poor thing"? Your either being deliberately ignorant or your trying to insult me by being stupid. You should be above that.

My intolerance involves some amount of involvement. .. asking for respectful refraining from doing those things in my presence or removing myself from the circumstance, whichever is most productively achievable.

Again, the entire quote...

My intolerance involves some amount of involvement. That would include witnessing, celebrating the concept, or participation in. Should I be forced - I say forced because it certainly wouldn't be voluntary - to (accidentally or not) do any of those things it would be intolerable to me and I would be forced to change the circumstances I found myself in by asking for respectful refraining from doing those things in my presence or removing myself from the circumstance, whichever is most productively achievable.

If you find something repulsive, how would you handle the situation? Perhaps you can't stand certain smells or the feel of something. Or perhaps you can't stand to see someone eating a particular thing without getting sick. How do you handle it. The above underlined words might be some solutions you would try. Care to tell me what's wrong with those solutions?

I'm opposed to the celebration of a sexuality. I'm opposed to being asked to tolerate, celebrate, or joyously accept its sexual practices.

What are you trying to point out here? I'm opposed to those things and I've given reasons...several. You've not given counterpoints as to why I shouldn't be opposed to such things? That opposition goes for my own sexuality as well by the way.
I definitely wouldn't expect someone else to celebrate how I prefer to have sex. Nor would I expect a homosexual to joyously accept its practices.

bombarded with ravings about how some people’s sexual preferences should be celebrated. Its complete and total ignorance and lunacy. Yah…let’s celebrate sex instead of being a decent human being that treats other human beings morally.

And? Making a national holiday in order to celebrate sexuality IS a bombardment as a citizen. Its unreasonable and ignorant since we've already established that sexuality isn't equated to a person so celebrating the sexuality diminishes the person. That's not rocket science.

to national holidays and the renaming of streets or removal of street signs in some cities in order to honor “queerness”.

Why in the heck fire should being queer be an honor? OR being heterosexual or any sexuality? That's just plain dumb.
Ladies and gentlemen...its an honor to be heterosexual. Please stand for heterosexuality. The next announcement...ladies and gentlemen...its an honor to be queer, please put your hands together for all things queer...yay.
Okay, so what's honorable about how you prefer to express your sexuality? Like I've been saying...wrong arguments for the wrong things.

you poor thing.

And this says its all. Your attitude is misaligned with your desired purpose here. Or perhaps your attitude betrays what your purpose is here?
Lets fight for the rights of LGBTQ++ persons but those you're fighting against derisively say to you..."Awe, you poor thing."
"Awe, you poor thing. How cute for you to think your fighting for something worth fighting for." How does that make you feel?
By mocking others you give up the high ground of rightfully expecting not to be mocked. I think we all know that mocking LGBTQ++ persons is ignorant and taboo. So why shouldn't mocking be taboo for all people, them as well?

Please point out exactly where i misquoted you.

"Yeah you deny it and go on to make homophobic posts and when you get called out on you. Start whining about how you are the victim."
"You continue to misrepresent the word homophobic"
"your quote above about the dismay at being pushed to watch two homosexuals having sex is irrational."
"you aren't being forced to watch anyone having sex"
"Your claim that this minority wants your approval for "How they achieve sexual gratification" is irrational"
"The fact that you seem to think anyone who doesn't share your "revulsion" must means something is wrong with them is irrational"
"Gays don't make you sick,"
"You are not being bombarded with ravings"
"Media is not 90% saturated with "queerness"
"You are not reminded of anyone "sexual preference" when you go to the grocery store"
" All you have done here is try to reduce people to sex acts"
" how about when you dehumanize gay people by reducing them and their lives to a sex act."

None of your statements above accurately portray what I've actually said and so tediously shown you. Some of them are blatant lies. Do you not think people will check these things out? Its here for all to see. Or don't you care about accurate representation?

 

[John53]

I wasn't expecting the slur, but what I am expecting is for atheists to jump all over this to **** on Catholicism.

Hecks, we already have some doing exactly that in this very thread.

Atheists aren't allowed to have an opinion?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I wasn't expecting the slur, but what I am expecting is for atheists to jump all over this to **** on Catholicism.

Hecks, we already have some doing exactly that in this very thread.

Why atheists, in particular? I mean, I'm both LGBTQ (I'm the "G" sort) and an atheist, but I don't slag any religion or church in particular. But there is no question (I hope) that religion has (and has historically had) a very great deal to say about gay folk -- and not much of it has been really nice and loving. Would you agree with that?

But let me also point out that those who wrote the "sacred" texts from which they derive their notions about LGBTQ people didn't actually know very much about them at all. How much science do we think went into the death sentences demanded in Leviticus? What did Paul actually know about how people actually become arsenokoites?

Have you read Cardinal Ratizinger's (as he was then) On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons? I have, for the record, and it's mostly insulting, and being based on dogma, as it is, not particularly well-informed scientifically. Nor is it well-informed from a humanistic POV. When the choices offered to a person with no choice about their own nature is "change," "cease" or "hide and be belittled," that's not all that workable, wouldn't you agree?

 

[setarcos]

Atheists aren't allowed to have an opinion?

Lol...don't atheists go out of their way to insist they have no opinion? Maybe I'm getting the wrong impression.

 

[John53]

Lol...don't atheists go out of their way to insist they have no opinion? Maybe I'm getting the wrong impression.

I don't understand your response

 

[setarcos]

But there is no question (I hope) that religion has (and has historically had) a very great deal to say about gay folk -- and not much of it has been really nice and loving. Would you agree with that?

Hi, just butting in. Kick me away if you wish.
Was just curious to get the view from a "gay folk" person. How do you interpret Christian scriptures view on homosexuality, please note the related verses so I know we are referencing the same thing?

But let me also point out that those who wrote the "sacred" texts from which they derive their notions about LGBTQ people didn't actually know very much about them at all.

Other than what we may interpret as homosexual conduct...I don't think any other sexualities of the LGBTQ community were actually mentioned were they? Are you extrapolating out from mentions of homosexuality in scripture? What do you think there should have been to know?

How much science do we think went into the death sentences demanded in Leviticus?

What went into the death sentences? I mean what do you think was the determinating factors?

What did Paul actually know about how people actually become arsenokoites?

What do you think we know about it today? Myriads of studies have been done to date and the best we've come up with so far is
"there is no one 'gay gene'" and environmental factors play a key role as well. The take away....its complicated and unsolved to date.

When the choices offered to a person with no choice about their own nature is "change," "cease" or "hide and be belittled," that's not all that workable, wouldn't you agree?

Again...I think its complicated and I certainly wouldn't like to be in that position. But how is what you say here any different from someone having a strong desire to have sex with the neighbors wife. Especially if she's willing or even the primary enticer? How about the need to smoke? Or kleptomaniacs? All desires which produce satiation of ones urges but that doesn't make those desires healthy or wise to do.
Its not a good argument to believe " I've been made to feel this way so it should be okay because it would suck if its not."
Sociopaths/psychopaths believe what they do is okay because they haven't the equipment to feel otherwise. Does that make it okay then if its harmful?
I think the argument should be whether it IS harmful in some manner and what would be the proper remedy if it were determined to be so?
Lets say we find the precise genetic factors which make one homosexual. Lets say we find a way to turn off or reverse the activation of those genetic factors which would effectively eliminate homosexual urges. Should we? I image nearly all homosexuals would scoff at the thought. But what do you think? IF one could, would it be more beneficial to be heterosexual rather than homosexual? I have no solid answers about this so I am interested in getting your opinions.

 

[setarcos]

I don't understand your response

Just that every time I try to discuss religious topics, specifically God/gods of course, with Atheists they insist they have no opinions on the matter that they need to defend.
I don't know...I just found what you said somewhat humorous in that regard.

 

[John53]

Just that every time I try to discuss religious topics, specifically God/gods of course, with Atheists they insist they have no opinions on the matter that they need to defend.
I don't know...I just found what you said somewhat humorous in that regard.

I think you're mixing up no opinion with something else, maybe no evidence.

 

[setarcos]

I think you're mixing up no opinion with something else, maybe no evidence.

You don't have to be so serious. It was humorous to me and I shared why. What evidence do you want me to provide you about my experience and are you really interested in seeing me prove my experiences that I found humorous? Not everything has to be or should have to be a proven thing. Just go with the funny sometimes...that's what I say. But, since you said that...
When you use the label "Atheist" it literally involves a reference to God and religious matters involving God/gods.
Now a person who considers themselves an atheist can certainly have opinions about all sorts of things which should be self-evident.
But a person who leads with the label "Atheist" as the qualifier of what we are referencing about the person that is relevant to the current discussion, is by most atheists definition, a person who has no opinions about God/gods and consequently the religions related to such things when they reference such authority.
There, in explaining the nit pickety details of what I found humorous you've rendered it flat and dull. Are you happy now. Can't even make a joke without someone ruining it for me...I shall now go and pout with self-pity in the bathroom now.

 

[setarcos]

Actually lots of Far Right Christians are trying to force their religion on America.

Aren't the LGBTQ++ people trying to do the equivalent? And I'm not talking about their humanity. I'm talking about their sexualities.
Anyhow, Christianity, according to what Christ taught, is a religion of choice not force. Any Christian who tries to force instead of convince another person to become one has missed Jesus's message entirely.
I think a lot of people get confused about that choice and complain that the choices given are equivalent to force. For instance...you can live with me or die without me. Some choice right?
But what's the complaint when your given the same choice with or without Christianity being true.
This world is hard to live in. Never the less we strive to live-most people anyway-because that is the natural instinct in living creatures. But you do have a choice. We make that choice every single day we are alive. That choice is to end the struggle to live. Its your choice. Live or kill yourself. A choice given either through purely "natural" means or given by God.
The only difference would be that Christians believe and have faith that choosing to live in communion with God will bring eternal life whereas choosing to live as if there were no God will only bring a temporary delay from being dead. Both choices are ultimately acts of faith.
Why poo poo God if it is the ship and it says stay aboard and live or jump overboard and die? Gods not gonna force you to stay aboard. It is what it is. Even if there is no God you've still got to make a choice.

There is no hetero month as it's the default.

There is no hetero month because dedicating a month to a sexuality for celebration is absurd and no one had thought of doing that until the sexuality crusaders misplaced their attempts to alleviate the discrimination of certain minority people and elevate their humanity by doing absurd things, such as celebrating sexual preferences which only makes the situation more confused and worse off. imo I know that's offensive but realize I'm only trying to be real with you.

And no one is forcing it on him.

IF by force you mean cuffing me and dragging me to a pride parade or propping my eyes open and forcing me to watch a homosexual pornographic movie then your absolutely correct...to present. But your disregarding every other form of force there is. That would include making ridiculous federal holidays celebrating sexuality. And we all know how quickly the commercial markets are to jump on making a profit out of selling junk to the masses related to federal holidays when they come around. That's another form of forced experience if you have to leave your house to do anything these days. That's just a few forms that force can take.
I don't mind those kinds of forced experience when it involves something important or enlightening, perhaps even beneficially uplifting in some manner. But sexuality? Come on. We used to try and confine those kinds of things to brothels, bars, and bedrooms for a reason.

What is forced upon us is a homogonized outlook that revolves around Christians and white men.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.
Consider though that your experience has a lot to do with your location and the culture you belong to. That experience would hardly hold up in Africa for instance or the middle east. You may be a victim of discrimination based upon many factors in the society you live in but your hardly the only victim, your minority group is hardly the only victim, other individuals in your particular minority group are hardly the only victims. Every group and most individuals have been victimized in one way or another and that includes majority groups and individuals victimized by their own minority groups that they are classified by, including white Christian men. Its just that we tend to disregard all other victims when emphasizing our own or our groups victimization. Consider that the LGBTQ++ movements and the LGBTQ++ heroes that stood and stand up for their rights not have made and wouldn't be making much progress without the cooperation and assistance from people who belong to the very groups accused of discriminating against them. That includes white Christian men. Minority victimization and individual victimization are much more involved than simply stereotyping other particular groups of people whole cloth. The only thing that does is perpetuate discrimination from all sides.
I'm curious. What "homogenized" outlook are you talking about that revolves around white men?
And who is us? Are you talking about the group which prefers to express themselves sexually in a particular way or are you talking about your particular groups humanity which has nothing to do with sexuality?

We have pride, as do other minorities such as black people, because history is a very different story when you include that we were there to.

I hope you don't believe that you have pride because the group you identify with has been discriminated against? I'm sure you can agree that its not a prideful thing to be victimized. So where in lies the pride? It is in your acting to promote right conduct in the face of wrong conduct isn't it.
You don't promote right conduct by conducting yourself in ways you are condemning other people for doing. For instance correcting historical inaccuracies and adding to the record things which were once excluded in order to promote a particular agenda or viewpoint is the right thing to do but unless you merely go from one sides whitewashing to the other sides whitewashing you won't eliminate the bad and the ugly from both sides. Some whites once bought and sold slaves, originally many from their own chieftains that sold them, some black Africans still do that today. Many whites treated blacks horribly. Some black tribes/nations in Africa have committed genocide against their neighbors up to the present. Homosexuals are discriminated against and even killed by other sexualities. And yet I just read not too long ago that some Homosexuals have been shown to generally discriminate against other more effeminate homosexuals and there have been infamous cases of homosexual serial killers of course. Some of them relishing preying upon other homosexuals.
The winners tend to write the histories of a people. But I've also noticed that in our zealousness to correct that issue we are tending to trade one white wash job for another white wash job of the people who were discriminated against or persecuted.
Are you a white woman? If so perhaps you should condemn yourself since white women had a big part to play in black subjugation and persecution. Do you feel condemnable?
No group of people minority or majority are innocent if you consider them one entity. All have committed terrible crimes against humanity at some point.
The only difference is that those that have the power to do so at the time diminish their own ugliness while emphasizing the ugliness found in others. It goes without saying that all sides make up that ugliness sometimes.
There's a deeper issue here than who belongs to what group or what race. Individuals from ALL groups of people -minority or majority- can and do commit horrendous crimes. That goes for all genders as well. We shouldn't condemn races, or minority groups or genders and expect positive change.
What we should condemn is damnable conduct or actions no matter what group it comes from.
Its fascinating to me that one group that accuses another group of discrimination often uses discriminating tactics against that other group when they can. The very thing the group discriminated against is claiming to be fighting against! History is full of one group dominating then another and back and forth. Your just living in a particular miniscule part of history. And the cycle continues because we constantly try to treat the symptoms instead of the disease.
Again, who is we? If the we you speak of concerns a sexuality then your not speaking about a people. Your speaking about a sexual preference.
Sexuality is not a race. Black is a race, white is a race, American Indian is a race, Asian is a race. LGBTQ++ is not a race.
What about a sexuality is prideful? To me, if I went around telling people how proud I am about the way I prefer to express myself sexually that would seem completely absurd.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Aren't the LGBTQ++ people trying to do the equivalent?

Equal rights is not the same as guiding legislation in accordance with your religion.
It's also nit my fault you haven't oaid attention to what the source if pride is despite it getting mentioned.

 

[Argentbear]

What do you think we know about it today? Myriads of studies have been done to date and the best we've come up with so far is
"there is no one 'gay gene'" and environmental factors play a key role as well. The take away....its complicated and unsolved to date.

There is no one black gene either or a single gene for any minority. There are many

"We established that the underlying genetic architecture is highly complex; there is certainly no single genetic determinant (sometimes referred to as the “gay gene” in the media). Rather, many loci with individually small effects, spread across the whole genome and partly overlapping in females and males, additively contribute to individual differences in predisposition to same-sex sexual behavior."
Andrea Ganna et al 2019 Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behavior
The research identified 5 loci and estimates there may be up to 100 more.

As for environmental factors. These factors have been found to be prenatal meaning that gays are born that way.

Again...I think its complicated and I certainly wouldn't like to be in that position. But how is what you say here any different from someone having a strong desire to have sex with the neighbors wife. Especially if she's willing or even the primary enticer? How about the need to smoke? Or kleptomaniacs? All desires which produce satiation of ones urges but that doesn't make those desires healthy or wise to do.

How would this comparison differ from your own sexual orientation?
Is your marriage (not sure if you are or not, just a guess) anything like kleptomania?

I have asked you before just what you mean when you talk about "healthy". You have never answered.

Its not a good argument to believe " I've been made to feel this way so it should be okay because it would suck if its not."

you just described heterosexuality.

Sociopaths/psychopaths believe what they do is okay because they haven't the equipment to feel otherwise. Does that make it okay then if its harmful?

would you compare your own urges to those of a sociopath's?

I think the argument should be whether it IS harmful in some manner and what would be the proper remedy if it were determined to be so?

What harm?

Lets say we find the precise genetic factors which make one homosexual. Lets say we find a way to turn off or reverse the activation of those genetic factors which would effectively eliminate homosexual urges. Should we? I image nearly all homosexuals would scoff at the thought. But what do you think? IF one could, would it be more beneficial to be heterosexual rather than homosexual? I have no solid answers about this so I am interested in getting your opinions.

say we find the the precise genetic factors which make one homosexual and a simple blood test would show this. Should newborns found to be homosexual be euthanized right in the delivery room? Would it be beneficial to do so? would it be healthier?

 

[Argentbear]

Aren't the LGBTQ++ people trying to do the equivalent? And I'm not talking about their humanity. I'm talking about their sexualities.

Are masses of LGBT individuals demanding to make opposite sex marriage illegal? Are they petitioning governments to make heterosexuality a punishable crime? Are they defending the bullying of straight children in the schools? Are they banning books in schools that even mention heterosexuality?

There is no hetero month because dedicating a month to a sexuality for celebration is absurd and no one had thought of doing that until the sexuality crusaders misplaced their attempts to alleviate the discrimination of certain minority people and elevate their humanity by doing absurd things, such as celebrating sexual preferences which only makes the situation more confused and worse off. imo I know that's offensive but realize I'm only trying to be real with you.

There is no hetero month because most people realize that no one is a sexual act and so very few people want to dehumanize others by pretending that it is.

IF by force you mean cuffing me and dragging me to a pride parade or propping my eyes open and forcing me to watch a homosexual pornographic movie then your absolutely correct...to present.

and most people aren't dishonest enough to suggest that movies of any sort are being shown at pride parades.

But your disregarding every other form of force there is. That would include making ridiculous federal holidays celebrating sexuality. And we all know how quickly the commercial markets are to jump on making a profit out of selling junk to the masses related to federal holidays when they come around. That's another form of forced experience if you have to leave your house to do anything these days. That's just a few forms that force can take.
I don't mind those kinds of forced experience when it involves something important or enlightening, perhaps even beneficially uplifting in some manner. But sexuality? Come on. We used to try and confine those kinds of things to brothels, bars, and bedrooms for a reason

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

And you are entitled to your prejudice

Consider though that your experience has a lot to do with your location and the culture you belong to. That experience would hardly hold up in Africa for instance or the middle east. You may be a victim of discrimination based upon many factors in the society you live in but your hardly the only victim, your minority group is hardly the only victim, other individuals in your particular minority group are hardly the only victims. Every group and most individuals have been victimized in one way or another and that includes majority groups and individuals victimized by their own minority groups that they are classified by, including white Christian men. Its just that we tend to disregard all other victims when emphasizing our own or our groups victimization. Consider that the LGBTQ++ movements and the LGBTQ++ heroes that stood and stand up for their rights not have made and wouldn't be making much progress without the cooperation and assistance from people who belong to the very groups accused of discriminating against them. That includes white Christian men. Minority victimization and individual victimization are much more involved than simply stereotyping other particular groups of people whole cloth.

you mean the way you denigrate, dehumanize and stereotype gays whole cloth?

The only thing that does is perpetuate discrimination from all sides.
I'm curious. What "homogenized" outlook are you talking about that revolves around white men?
And who is us? Are you talking about the group which prefers to express themselves sexually in a particular way or are you talking about your particular groups humanity which has nothing to do with sexuality?

no group does but there are those who choose to dehumanize others by obsessing about sex as a means of justifying their own prejudices.

I hope you don't believe that you have pride because the group you identify with has been discriminated against? I'm sure you can agree that its not a prideful thing to be victimized. So where in lies the pride? It is in your acting to promote right conduct in the face of wrong conduct isn't it.

Of course it has to do with the long history of discrimination LGBT have been subjected to and are still being subjected to.

It is a pride worthy thing to stand up to bigots and hate mongers and people who threaten violence and discrimination. it is pride worth to confront those who lie and those who demonize.

You don't promote right conduct by conducting yourself in ways you are condemning other people for doing. For instance correcting historical inaccuracies and adding to the record things which were once excluded in order to promote a particular agenda or viewpoint is the right thing to do but unless you merely go from one sides whitewashing to the other sides whitewashing you won't eliminate the bad and the ugly from both sides. Some whites once bought and sold slaves, originally many from their own chieftains that sold them, some black Africans still do that today. Many whites treated blacks horribly. Some black tribes/nations in Africa have committed genocide against their neighbors up to the present. Homosexuals are discriminated against and even killed by other sexualities. And yet I just read not too long ago that some Homosexuals have been shown to generally discriminate against other more effeminate homosexuals and there have been infamous cases of homosexual serial killers of course. Some of them relishing preying upon other homosexuals.

There have been infamous cases of black serial killers as well. Does their existence justify racism?

The winners tend to write the histories of a people. But I've also noticed that in our zealousness to correct that issue we are tending to trade one white wash job for another white wash job of the people who were discriminated against or persecuted.
Are you a white woman? If so perhaps you should condemn yourself since white women had a big part to play in black subjugation and persecution. Do you feel condemnable?
No group of people minority or majority are innocent if you consider them one entity. All have committed terrible crimes against humanity at some point.
The only difference is that those that have the power to do so at the time diminish their own ugliness while emphasizing the ugliness found in others. It goes without saying that all sides make up that ugliness sometimes.

so those nasty gay deserve to be discriminated against.

There's a deeper issue here than who belongs to what group or what race. Individuals from ALL groups of people -minority or majority- can and do commit horrendous crimes. That goes for all genders as well. We shouldn't condemn races, or minority groups or genders and expect positive change.
What we should condemn is damnable conduct or actions no matter what group it comes from.
Its fascinating to me that one group that accuses another group of discrimination often uses discriminating tactics against that other group when they can. The very thing the group discriminated against is claiming to be fighting against! History is full of one group dominating then another and back and forth. Your just living in a particular miniscule part of history. And the cycle continues because we constantly try to treat the symptoms instead of the disease.
Again, who is we? If the we you speak of concerns a sexuality then your not speaking about a people. Your speaking about a sexual preference.
Sexuality is not a race. Black is a race, white is a race, American Indian is a race, Asian is a race. LGBTQ++ is not a race.

nor is it a sex act but you continual reduce them to just that.

What about a sexuality is prideful? To me, if I went around telling people how proud I am about the way I prefer to express myself sexually that would seem completely absurd.

do you tell people you are married?
wear a wedding ring?
keep family pictures on your person?
display such pictures at your job?
Guess what. you are going around telling people about how you prefer to have sex and you are doing so proudly

 

[Kathryn]

Isn't he supposed to be infallible??????

No.